Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Ships - individual suggestions and feedback

Recommended Posts

Hello devs and forum users.

 

I apologise if any of this sounds like i'm having a go at forum users, I just need to state a few things in my arguments as I've noticed a tendency for people to get hung up over certain things on this forum.

 

Please remove the 24pdrs from the Bellona's Middle gun deck.

I'm sure you did this for gameplay reasons but for a historically based game it makes very little sense.

 

This ship had 18pdrs on the middle deck. No 74 that i'm aware of had 24 pdrs on the middle deck.

If some of you find reference to an obscure 74 that had 24 pdrs on the middle deck, that's lovely but the Bellona represents the standard latter 18th century 74.

 

Regards

 

Nick

 

P.S As the game clearly uses the 18th century British rating system for vessels, there is no need to talk semantics.

The Pavel is technically a 3rd rate ship and is and should be roughly equivalent to a large 80 gun 3rd rate such as HMS Foudroyant.

As it is now, its "armour" makes it far more powerful than the 74s.

A 2nd rate vessel was a 3 decker with around 90-98 cannon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Bellona

lower gun deck single shot firing order is broken 

minor problem but still an error

check issue and repair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Sanson

The fore an aft riggers seem way to slow down wind. When sailing I still have the feeling that I'm faster with the wind behind me than sailing close hauled and even if they actually were faster close hauled than down wind, a privateer should always be faster than a trader Brig or Snow at any wind position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

— all vessels that I have tested so far

 

— concerns the behaviour of dis-masted ships. Given the loss of the foremast/bowsprit, the ship would swing round to point upwind, and it would be difficult to manoeuvre away from this direction without a jury-rig to oppose the wind's effect on the aft sails. Similarly; having the main & mizzen shot away renders it almost impossible to point anywhere but bow-downwind. (Think of a weather-vane...)

 

— The dismasted vessels in battle do not behave this way, often steadfastly pointing in the wrong direction

 

— modify dis-masted vessels' behaviour to correct their orientation to the wind, please.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize if this is the wrong thread for my question, I wanna know if the niagara is still excluded from shallow water port battles? I'm heavily focused on crafting at the moment and wonder if I should bother making mercs for BP drop or not. If niagara is still excluded, are there any plans to allow her to join shallow water PB?

Edited by BACk ALLEY ShENANiGANS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name of the ship : Renomee

Define the problem with a ship or a vessel : Hull bouncing

Why it is a problem : It is a problem because Renommee's hull is bouncing every single shoot even while shooting in a perfect parallel angle (side to side) with 12 lb long canon at boarding range.

If we can't penetrate such weak 5th rank ship with long canon (best penetration) at boarding range, then there is something wrong with the game.

What should developers do to fix the problem : Decrease renomee planking or do something special for the renomee, the ship is modeled in a way that the hull is too curvy to get any penetration.

 

Renommee hull is bouncing even while shooting in a perfect parallel angle with 12 lb long canon at boarding range...

While the renommee, with 9lb wrecked my oak frigate without a problem, penetrating my hull like butter even when showing a 45° angle to it. 

Edited by Pugwis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that many think that Bucentaure is a great ships.  I think it is not great, but instead it is just OP, and most probably broken.  Devs should definitely check the ship.

Edited by Cmdr RideZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It compensates that with throwing the crew into the holes in your hull to fix it. 

 

I never lose so many crewmen on any other ship 3rd-1st rate engaging enemies. 

 

Well, it is massively overcrewed and about 120+ men sit idle in the deactivated boarding thing. Maybe thats the reason while getting shot on the top deck, i dont know. :)

Edited by Tyrdael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Santa Cecilia cannon count as it was IRL?

 

It is rather high.

In real life it had:

- 26x 12 pdrs

- 10x 6 pdr/18 pdr Carronades

- 2x 6 pdr chasers

 

It had a crew of 220 men, the game usually adds a few more as the french in particular used higher crew numbers, so call it 220-260 men.

 

I'm not sure about armament it currently has, but the crew needs a serious reduction as it currently has 315 men! (more than the 18 pdr frigate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naval Action Wiki says that she mounts 16 guns on the weather deck, not including chasers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Santa Cecilia, I heard that the spanish overgunned her as a result she has more guns in game as you can see her as the spanish captured. I dont know to what extent she was overgunned though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has information on her, i'd love to see how the Spanish equipped her compared to the British.

I know she never put to sea under the Spanish, so being over gunned would probably have had an adverse effect on her sailing and handling.

As for over gunning, i suspect that is more by increasing gun caliber than number of guns. So 24 pdr carronades and 9 pdr cannon rather than 18/6 pdrs would make more sense than trying to squeeze an additional 6 larger guns on the deck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be funny if the Spanish did up-gun her, since they usually carried such light armaments, comparatively speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The armament of the original Hermione (Santa Cecilia)was indeed

26x 12pdrs on the gun deck

4x 6pdrs + 4x 18pdr carronades on the quarterdeck

2x 6pdrs + 2x 18pdr carronades on the forecastle

with a crew of 220 men

according to the book "British warships in the age of sail"

if required i can give the building costs, too.

Though i find it strange to take the name for this ship, which it had the shortest time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The armament of the original Hermione (Santa Cecilia)was indeed

26x 12pdrs on the gun deck

4x 6pdrs + 4x 18pdr carronades on the quarterdeck

2x 6pdrs + 2x 18pdr carronades on the forecastle

with a crew of 220 men

according to the book "British warships in the age of sail"

if required i can give the building costs, too.

Though i find it strange to take the name for this ship, which it had the shortest time.

 

So, what do we call the French Hermione then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The armament of the original Hermione (Santa Cecilia)was indeed

26x 12pdrs on the gun deck

4x 6pdrs + 4x 18pdr carronades on the quarterdeck

2x 6pdrs + 2x 18pdr carronades on the forecastle

with a crew of 220 men

according to the book "British warships in the age of sail"

if required i can give the building costs, too.

Though i find it strange to take the name for this ship, which it had the shortest time.

 

Well, because they wanted to include a version with more men (documented) and more guns (haven't seen documentation for this).  A British version is also planned, and hopefully will bear her post-recapture name to distinguish from the French Hermione.

 

Now what I find strange is the totally arbitrary gun weight allowances and restrictions on Santa Cecilia.  She can carry 9pdrs on her weatherdecks where her much smaller number of historical 6pdrs were probably already pushing limits of the design, but at the same time she can only replace her gun deck 12pdrs with 24pdr carronades, not 32s as on every other 5th rate.  The arbitrary gun classes on Santa Cecilia smack of simply being made different to be different, rather than consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the armor of the Belle Poule is too thick compared with the other ships.

 

The side armor of the Belle Poule is 64.

 

The Trincomallee, Essex and the Frigate is 60.

The Constitution and the Ingermanland have a side armor of 65.

 

I understand that the Belle Poule shall be a little more tanky compared to the other Frigates due to her 12pdrs, but that is already done in the shape of her hull, which lets the balls bounce off easily. But in the end she is a frigate and shall have a frigates armor, not that of a 4th-rate.

 

I therefore ask to reduce the Belle Poule's armor to 60, maybe 61 to give her a little advantage compared to the Frigates.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, 

 

The Belle Poule armor and the rounded shape it have combined with formula used for bouncing shots renders it very strange in battle , able to bounce shots at close range, and make no mistake if we see it more and more used there is probably a reason for it.

 

 

This is a quick comparison of the ships :

 

50415420160824212148.png  84027520160824221314.png

 

 

 

- A belle Poule made of teak will still have more armor than a Trinc, frigate or Essex made of live oak and this while suffering no speed penalties due to the use of teak vs live oak, we end up with 68 cm for the belle in teak vs 67cm for others in live oak

 

 -In comparison a Constitution or Ingermanland get 65 cm armor by default on sides vs 64 cm by default on Belle Poule ... They also get the same armor on stern and only 1cm more on bow.

 

- A Belle Poule in live oak with speed outcome ends up with 71cm armor on side, with stiffness and live oak it ends up with 73 cm on side ... With the shape it have it can bounce many shots of calibers like 18Pd's under 500m range and way closer too if shots are not 100% perfectly lined up and not hitting the good spots less rounded of the ship.

 

- Belle poule speed is more than decent, combined with the ability to have a teak one still more armored than a trinc, frigate or essex it's a nice advantage + having stern chasers.

 

- Only 100 HP less on sails and sides than a frigate or Essex, 2 cm more armor on bow and stern than a frigate or essex or trinc.

 

- HP on bow and stern is inferior to a frigate, but way superior to an Essex ?? I still don't understand why the essex was so much nerfed some patches ago for this part, note that Essex speed was raised from 12.23 to 12.35Kn on this last patch and it's more than welcome for this ship, thanks for that, still it remains the poor parent of the family in many domains beside the gunnery ... 

 

And when we compare with Santa Cecilia i don't know if i should start to cry or scream about injustice toward this nice ship, i feel like the Essex should get the Cecilia armor, Trinc only one cm more than essex/ current cecilia ( one cm less than current belle poule ) , Belle poule reduced to 60-61 cm and frigate stay the same, for Cecilia i don't really know...

 

 

 

I started to conduct some tests on one Belle Poule after fighting a nice battle against the PODW clan coming often with a small fleet having a few Belle's in it loaded with carronades, the last battle against them left me very perplex about this ship bouncing rate, i had many WTF o_O! moments in this battle seeing the very few damages made at less than 100m and balls bouncing at angles they should have not bounced, i see more and more belle's used around me for the bouncing effect they have, i still need time to conduct more testing on this ship ( too much stuff to test in game and not enough time for all ) , but this ship armor + hull shape+ maths formula applied for balls bounce system ends up in many fubar moments in battles.

 

This ships reminds me this when i unload iron at it at very close range and see the balls bouncing and the very few damages inflicted : 

 

326305bouncingshot.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically, the thickness of the Constitution was greater than that of the Bellona.  I was hoping the armor thickness numbers would be the historical thickness of the ships.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5th rate and below side thicknesses are arbitrary nonsense, as is Constitution thickness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be nice to try in a test system the real ships with all their differences without gameplay balancing. A thing I would really like to try, since I prefer the historical correct version where a frigate could never fight a 3rd successfully.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be nice to try in a test system the real ships with all their differences without gameplay balancing. A thing I would really like to try, since I prefer the historical correct version where a frigate could never fight a 3rd successfully.

+1 from me. Like a hardliner testbed? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some kind PvP-realism server, contrary to our pvp-fun server. Since the battles will take longer, without any time limit, hulls shall partly disintegrate when hit too many times in one spot and only damage below the waterline leads to sinking.

That would be a dream...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...